Acquisition Workflow: BPMN Version 2
Meeting Chart 1 - as plotted in the community design meeting
Meeting Discussion 1 - as presented in the community design meeting
Meeting Chart 2 - as plotted in the community design meeting
Meeting Discussion 2 - as presented in the community design meeting
I think this Workflow represents my process very well. No complaints here.
to my opinion it would be worthwhile to enter as well a part within the workflow where a letter of declination towards the person who is offering an object to the museum can be put in. so many objects are offered, and most of them are declined. depending how the offering tookplace, good documentation needs to take place and needs to be efficiently effectuated
Statens Museum for Kunst/KV
Artist Interview, order: SMK would not do an artist interview before acquisition as this is very time
and resource consuming. Instead we would include questions to the artist on the pre-acquisition form if that information was needed to help decide for or against acquisition. We are not critical to the diagram, only the order of the work flow regarding that particular point.
Movement/transport: after check in and treatment there is in-house movement to either storage or exhibition.
Hi Robert,
Re: letter of declination Is it enough to add it to the group of documents (along with condition report and fielded form check-in report) below the question ‘Object Acquired?’ to the right of the ‘No’ arrow? Or, are there other steps in the process when the answer is ‘No’?
Hi SMK,
Thanks for this information. We can add a yellow documentation notation (pre-acquisition form) to the existing list of documentation collected at the very beginning of the process (to the right of the first step - collect information). Would you then move the artist interview box to the bottom left together with the items to the left of Object Check in? Or, further down below to the left of the box labeled Document?
And, perhaps, the artist interview box in the mid-section (along with resource recommendations, time/cost, and legal discussion) becomes an optional step, rather than an ‘assumed’ required step.
Before “Object Acquired?” there should be an “Object Approved?” step. Between Approval and Acquired there should be a loop back to “Assess/Examine”. Many times the object is transported before approval.
One document associated with Assess/Examine is “owner approval of analysis”.
Transport triggers Registrar.
Whenever there is Transport without ownership there is an owner waiver form.
Registration should be part of what can be possibly triggered by “Check in of Object”.
In this Museum, there is not a second condition report generated at Check In, instead the pre-acquisition conditon report is used.
Transportation can also happen when the Object is not acquired
This workflow seems to be focused on the general acquisition process, rather than the acquisition process from a conservator’s perspective.
Where is the de-accession flow chart?
Conservation input, research, interviews and analysis can happen before and after the official approval, depending on the circumstances. Building in this flexibility seems logical for an efficient workflow.
Hi MetMuseum,
Thanks for your question. There were many topics up for discussion during the workshops but, we were not able to cover all of them. The workflows included here, represent those topics that we were were able to discuss at length; deaccession was not one of them.
Could we replace [Artist Interview] with something like [Artist Considerations] this could allow everything from a full interview to checking that there are no defined limitations or restrictions.
Another point is that, in many cases the object may already be in the institution as a long or short term loan. Therefore the [Movement] and the [Check In] steps would need to be optional or at least flexible.
in addition to making a condition report, the conservator sometimes makes a presentation about the condition of the object to external funding bodies.